ROBINSON wrote:
I don't get all this "Scotland can't afford it" malarkey.
Ireland manages, Belgium manages, Lichtenstein manages, Luxembourg manages and a lot of a countries a damn sight smaller and poorer than Scotland manage. If they want to leave, that's fine. It's no problem.
Well countries like Luxemburg afford it by rather dubious tax breaks for companies and whatever. Ireland is a better example and look what happened there. A boom fuelled by ever rising property prices and lending and now they are up the creak without a paddle.
I have been reading various comments on the net for a few days about this and one of the main topics is oil, how much of it is Scotland's and how much it is actually worth per year.
If you believe the SNP oil revenue will turn Scotland into the 6th richest country in the world overnight. If you believe the government even with oil revenue Scotland would still run an annual deficit (so would have to borrow year on year which we know can't go on forever).
Who knows what the truth is.
What is interesting is Alex Salmond saying things like Scotland will keep the pound and Queen as head of state and various other things such as a common defence commitment.
I don't think it is up to him to decide. Why would we want the pounds value kept high by being associated with the "6th richest country in the world"? I'd tell 'em to get stuffed and join the Euro which they may have to do to join the EU which they supposedly want to do.
It seems to boil down to Scotland keeping all the oil revenue and yet benefiting from a common defence policy, currency, the BBC and so on. What would it mean for the NHS in Scotland? Salmond will want all that on the cheap based on Scotland's 5m (and falling) population relative to the rest of the UK.
I think despite the view that Cameron saying get on with it and decide once and for all plays into the SNP's hands in that it will turn more Scots into voting for independence, as the debate develops all the issues about just what independence actually means will have to come out. "Devo Max" or a version of independence where they keep this or that institution is not just for the SNP to decide because that would affect everyone else in the UK from a cost point of view.
The SNP strategy has been for a while to make independence seem reasonable to Scots opposed to the idea (by doing stuff like keeping the Queen as head of state etc) but the more reasonable you make it the less like independence it looks so surely the question then is why bother? The answer is from the SNP's point of view oil. They seem to think they can have that bit of cake and get the rest of the benefits of being part of the UK.
